History shows you must fix your long-term QB position via the draft..

[mattb78]

History shows that you have to draft your way into QB success. Look no further than the Watson rumors, which at this point haven't materialized, because nobody wants to trade away a true top 10 QB talent.

Its possibly to catch a talented QB at the end of their career. The Bucs lucked into Brady this year, Rivers took Indy to a playoff game, Peyton even won one with Denver at the very end (although he wasn't very potent) but you need long term stability, not a 1 or 2 year rental, and those are for teams with an offense and a coaching system in place that invites QBs. Rule Chicago out.

The best modern examples of long term stability via free agency or trade is Drew Brees, followed by Kirk Cousins and Ryan Tannehill. You can find them but the odds are heavily against you. We are talking 3 players versus the vast majority of the league dominating with home grown talent.

I agree that trying to find a QB with the 20th pick is very difficult, but it might be easier than trying to find long term stability with a free agent or trade. Just look at the very few QBs that had any success outside of the team that drafted them... that's a short list. Free agent trash just for the sake of a new face may be exciting up until the moment we actually have to watch them play.

Buckle up boys and join the Jones/Trask train. It will probably come crashing into the station. But historically, its our best chance.

 

[Visionman]

What matters is building a quality team, and there are many ways to do that. With the way the QB market is getting, I think the most viable way is to build the team, and then add the QB to it. Right now, QBs are so outrageously expensive, unless you have that generational talent (Brady, Rogers, maybe Mahomes) that can carry a lesser team to victory, you will never be able to build the team they need to succeed and fit under the cap.

So build the team, and add the best QB you can to that.

 

[remydat]

Brett Favre was acquired via trade. Brady has already delivered a SB ring to his new team.

 

[mattb78]

I think the most viable way is to build the team, and then add the QB to it.

I totally agree with that timing. Generally, holding off to add the QB as the last piece gives you the most years of higher draft selections. A good QB probably adds 2-3 wins to your team and can push you out of those early selections.

 

[mattb78]

Brett Favre was acquired via trade. Brady has already delivered a SB ring to his new team.

My caveat was modern example. I don't know if a 1991 trade qualifies...

My point being is that even though we are all scared shitless of drafting another QB high, its historically the best way to solve the problem.

 

[Leomaz]

History shows that you have to draft your way into QB success. Look no further than the Watson rumors, which at this point haven't materialized, because nobody wants to trade away a true top 10 QB talent.

Its possibly to catch a talented QB at the end of their career. The Bucs lucked into Brady this year, Rivers took Indy to a playoff game, Peyton even won one with Denver at the very end (although he wasn't very potent) but you need long term stability, not a 1 or 2 year rental, and those are for teams with an offense and a coaching system in place that invites QBs. Rule Chicago out.

The best modern examples of long term stability via free agency or trade is Drew Brees, followed by Kirk Cousins and Ryan Tannehill. You can find them but the odds are heavily against you. We are talking 3 players versus the vast majority of the league dominating with home grown talent.

I agree that trying to find a QB with the 20th pick is very difficult, but it might be easier than trying to find long term stability with a free agent or trade. Just look at the very few QBs that had any success outside of the team that drafted them... that's a short list. Free agent trash just for the sake of a new face may be exciting up until the moment we actually have to watch them play.

Buckle up boys and join the Jones/Trask train. It will probably come crashing into the station. But historically, its our best chance.

Tampa Bay (twice)
Denver
Green Bay
Baltimore
Oakland
St. Louis
San Francisco

 

[remydat]

My caveat was modern example. I don't know if a 1991 trade qualifies...

My point being is that even though we are all scared shitless of drafting another QB high, its historically the best way to solve the problem.

Yeah but you haven't proven your argument. There are more drafted QBs who worked out because there are more teams that chose the draft to try and find out. There are also far more drafted QBs that failed for that reason as well so you are just focusing on the successes while ignoring all the failures. You would have to look at all QBs drafted vs all QBs traded or signed via FA and then compare how successful those QBs have been. What percentage of them succeeded or failed so that you can account for the differences in population size.

Until then there is anecdotal evidence you can be successful under either scenario.

 

[MikeDitkaPolishSausage]

What matters is building a quality team, and there are many ways to do that. With the way the QB market is getting, I think the most viable way is to build the team, and then add the QB to it. Right now, QBs are so outrageously expensive, unless you have that generational talent (Brady, Rogers, maybe Mahomes) that can carry a lesser team to victory, you will never be able to build the team they need to succeed and fit under the cap.

So build the team, and add the best QB you can to that.

I don’t think building a team and adding the best QB is as easy as you might think. It might take a franchise too long to find that QB and during that time, the team splits up. I personally feel the opposite is a better strategy. Obviously both strategy’s need a good GM, but if you find the franchise QB first, you have the time to build a team around him.

 

[Visionman]

I don’t think building a team and adding the best QB is as easy as you might think. It might take a franchise too long to find that QB and during that time, the team splits up. I personally feel the opposite is a better strategy. Obviously both strategy’s need a good GM, but if you find the franchise QB first, you have the time to build a team around him.

Not once you pay that franchise QB. Watch what happens when KC can’t pay for their weapons in a year or two. Even Mahomes may not be enough then.

 

[thenewguy]

Not once you pay that franchise QB. Watch what happens when KC can’t pay for their weapons in a year or two. Even Mahomes may not be enough then.

It's a million times easier to find Mahomes new weapons than it is to find another Mahomes.

 

[cosmodinardo]

I don't really think anyone can argue with that fact that finding a talented young QB in the draft and having him on a rookie deal for several years before you lock him up with a multi-year max offer is the ideal situation.

 

[MikeDitkaPolishSausage]

Not once you pay that franchise QB. Watch what happens when KC can’t pay for their weapons in a year or two. Even Mahomes may not be enough then.

I get that, but that doesn’t mean they are never going to be ale to sign quality players. There are plenty of players out there that won’t demand as much money and could still be a weapon for Mahomes. There are few teams in this league that have a legit franchise QB and the overall team is not competitive.

 

[thenewguy]

I don't really think anyone can argue with that fact that finding a talented young QB in the draft and having him on a rookie deal for several years before you lock him up with a multi-year max offer is the ideal situation.

It's ideal, but good ones are only cheap for 4 years and then you pay them anyway, and they usually aren't making you superbowl contenders in the first year or two.. It didn't really slow the Bucs or Packers down this year. The majority of recent super bowl champs and even finalists have had QB's on veteran deals.

It's not as restrictive as many make it out to be.

 

[airtime143]

Brett Favre was acquired via trade. Brady has already delivered a SB ring to his new team.

Brady isnt long term, and favre was an absolute unknown with 4 attempts.

a team may luck in to a brees situation every now and then... but even that was double lightning strike- The chargers hit a stride with brees after they drafted another rock solid starter, and in the end the decision was made due to Brees injuring his throwing shoulder.

picking up guys who were not worth keeping on other teams may be a short fix for a contending team, but rarely will it get you a long term starter.

Me? I would prefer a kid with potential over a 3+ year underperformer not worthy of a new contract.

 

[mattb78]

It's also a deep QB draft with 6 guys that can sling it.

Pace is going to get a second chance at drafting a QB, and this is a pretty good draft to take a shot.

 

[NCChiFan]

Always considered a vet signing as a bandaid.

 

[Visionman]

It's a million times easier to find Mahomes new weapons than it is to find another Mahomes.

Not without $$$ to pay them.

And no, you don’t find players like Hill and Kelce growing on trees.

 

[Visionman]

I don't really think anyone can argue with that fact that finding a talented young QB in the draft and having him on a rookie deal for several years before you lock him up with a multi-year max offer is the ideal situation.

No, but the chances of drafting a rookie good enough to win with his first couple years is practically impossible.

 

[Da Coach]

I think it can happen either way but neither one is easy. Foles, Jimmy G, Brady, Breese, Favre, manning, Kurt Warner.... I could go on but they're are plenty of free agent qb success stories as well as draft stories. I think both are equally difficult to find tho

 

[remydat]

Brady isnt long term, and favre was an absolute unknown with 4 attempts.

a team may luck in to a brees situation every now and then... but even that was double lightning strike- The chargers hit a stride with brees after they drafted another rock solid starter, and in the end the decision was made due to Brees injuring his throwing shoulder.

picking up guys who were not worth keeping on other teams may be a short fix for a contending team, but rarely will it get you a long term starter.

Me? I would prefer a kid with potential over a 3+ year underperformer not worthy of a new contract.

We dont know if Brady is long term as who knows how long he will play. We do know that he has already achieved the goal of football which is winning a SB. A long term QB is not the goal. The goal is winning a SB which Brady did.

As for Favre, he still was acquired via trade. I have no idea what the point is here. There isnt a Bears fan who wouldnt trade a long term QB with no guarantee for winning to a QB that will win us a SB in year 1.

I would prefer getting Watson. I never advocated picking up a scrub QB.